News of Note
The amalgamation or winding-up of a sub vapourizes its losses for Ontario CMT purposes
Email this ContentThe eligible losses of a subsidiary for Ontario corporate minimum tax purposes disappear when it is amalgamated with, or wound-up into, its parent.
Neal Armstrong. Summaries of 26 October 2016 Internal T.I. 2016-0625041I7 under Taxation Act 2007 (Ont.), s. 58(4.1), s. 58(5).
Eligible losses for Ontario CMT purposes are not affected by changes in the Ontario allocation factor
A corporation that becomes subject to Ontario corporate minimum tax (e.g., as a result of acquiring an Ontario permanent establishment) will be required to determine its eligible losses as if it had been subject to CMT in previous taxation years. There is no provision in the Taxation Act to adjust eligible losses to reflect changes in a corporation’s Ontario allocation factor.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 15 November 2016 Internal T.I. 2016-0656351I7 under Taxation Act 2007 (Ont.), s. 58(2).
Corporations on IFRS should use “total comprehensive income” as their starting point for determining adjusted net income for Ontario CMT purposes
Where a corporation uses IFRS, it should use “Total comprehensive income” as a starting point in determining its adjusted net income/adjusted net loss (ANI/ANL) for Ontario corporate minimum tax purposes provided that the consolidation and equity methods of accounting are not used. However, some items reported in the “Statement of Comprehensive Income” may need to be removed in arriving at its ANI/ANL. “For example, adjustments for unrealized mark-to-market gains/losses on assets that are not required to be included in computing income for income tax purposes are not included in ANI/ANL for CMT purposes.”
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 14 November 2016 Internal T.I. 2015-0600281I7 under Taxation Act 2007 (Ont.), s. 54(2)(a).
Bad drafting of spousal trusts can sometimes be handled
Drafting that provides for the payment of income to or “for the benefit” of a spouse likely does not taint a spousal trust.
A disclaimer should result in the disclaiming beneficiary being treated as never having had the property or interest in question, so that it should be possible for a disclaimer of a bad potential entitlement to untaint an otherwise tainted spousal trust. A contrary view expressed in Gilbert Estate was incorrect.
Purposes coming within the Pemsel charitable heads include a trust for one’s poor relations or needy employees, for research that increases and disseminates knowledge and for the support of the arts.
Neal Armstrong. Summaries of Elie Roth, Tim Youdan, Chris Anderson and Kim Brown, "Classification of Trusts for Income Tax Purposes", Chapter 2 of Canadian Taxation of Trusts, (Canadian Tax Foundation), 2016, including under s. 70(6)(b) and s. 149.1(1) – charitable foundation.
Further full-text translations of severed letters from July 2015 are available
Full-text translations of six technical interpretations released in French between July 29, 2015 and June 30, 2015 are now available - and are listed and briefly described in the table below.
These (and the other translations covering the last 20 months of CRA releases) are subject to the usual (3 working weeks per month) paywall.
| Bundle Date | Translated severed letter | Summaries under | Summary descriptor |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2015-07-29 | 4 November 2014 External T.I. 2014-0521211E5 F - Cartes-cadeau d'une chaîne de supermarchés | Income Tax Act - Section 67.1 - Subsection 67.1(1) | 50% limitation applicable to gift cards exchangeable at supermarket |
| 5 November 2014 External T.I. 2014-0521891E5 F - Résidence principale et copropriété | Income Tax Act - Section 40 - Subsection 40(4) | overview of s. 40(4) rule | |
| General Concepts - Ownership | whether a tacit co-ownership agreement is respected is a private law issue | ||
| 5 November 2014 External T.I. 2014-0529991E5 F - Avantage pour automobile-personne liée | Income Tax Act - Section 6 - Subsection 6(2) | standby charge computed based on cost to auto owner which is related to employer | |
| Income Tax Act - Section 251 - Subsection 251(2) - Paragraph 251(2)(b) - Subparagraph 251(2)(b)(i) | control of non-share corp references who can appoint board | ||
| 2015-07-22 | 24 June 2015 External T.I. 2015-0575911E5 F - Benefit to shareholder or conferred on a person | Income Tax Act - Section 15 - Subsection 15(1.4) - Paragraph 15(1.4)(c) | benefit only conferred on one shareholder (the husband) if wife of one of four sibling shareholders receives benefit |
| Income Tax Act - Section 246 - Subsection 246(1) | benefit conferred on spouse of individual shareholder of parent | ||
| Income Tax Act - Section 56 - Subsection 56(2) | benefit conferred on spouse of individual shareholder of parent | ||
| 2015-07-15 | 11 June 2015 External T.I. 2014-0522641E5 F - Usufruct | Income Tax Act - Section 73 - Subsection 73(3) | creation of usufruct between father and son entails transfer of trust interest, not farm property |
| Income Tax Act - 101-110 - Section 108 - Subsection 108(7) | creation of usufruct between father and son, resulting in deemed trust, did not entail property transfer to the deemed trust | ||
| Income Tax Act - 101-110 - Section 110.6 - Subsection 110.6(1) - Qualified Farm or Fishing Property | termination of usufruct between father and son on farmland, which was a deemed trust, did not entail disposition of qualified farm property | ||
| 2015-06-30 | 2 June 2015 External T.I. 2015-0570071E5 F - Attribution Rules Trust | Income Tax Act - Section 74.4 - Subsection 74.4(2) | application of s. 74.4(2) to family trust with minor beneficiaries after s. 51(1) freeze in favour of second family trust with same minor beneficiaries |
Sifto – Tax Court of Canada finds that a taxpayer-accepted agreement with the U.S. competent authority re a VDP-adjusted transfer price binds CRA even if it had not yet audited the taxpayer
CRA accepted a voluntary disclosure by Sifto Canada that it had undercharged on its sales of rock salt to a U.S. affiliate, and reassessed accordingly. Sifto Canada and its U.S. parent then applied to the Canadian and U.S. competent authorities for there to be a correlative downward adjustment in the income of the consolidated U.S. group based on the higher transfer price. The two competent authorities agreed to this, and CRA then entered into a letter agreement with Sifto Canada where it agreed with the adjustment.
Only then did CRA audit Sifto Canada, which resulted in it reassessing Sifto Canada on the basis that the transfer prices should have been even higher. CRA argued that the competent-authority agreement did not represent an agreement on the transfer price and that, in any event, it would be improper for it to implement an agreement which it did not view as according with the ITA.
Owen J rejected these arguments, and found that the above multi-party arrangements had resulted in binding agreements as to the transfer prices, and that such an agreement between the competent authorities in accordance with the Treaty had paramountcy over the ITA provisions.
Neal Armstrong. Summaries of Sifto Canada Corp. v. The Queen, 2017 TCC 37 under Treaties, Art. 9, s. 247(2) and s. 115.1(1).
OPTrust – Ontario Superior Court finds that Ontario LTT applied to contingent deferred purchase price which, in fact, never became payable
The Ontario Land Transfer Tax Act definition of “value of the consideration” includes not only the “the amount expressed in money of any consideration given or to be given for the conveyance” but also “the value expressed in money of any liability assumed or undertaken by the transferee” and of “any benefit of whatsoever kind conferred by the transferee on any person as part of the arrangement relating to the conveyance.”
Purchasers of prospective shopping mall lands paid LTT based not only on the cash amount paid at closing but also on future amounts that would become payable by them upon the vendors achieving specified “milestones” relating to matters such as zoning and prospective leases. The future amounts were expressed to be part of the purchase price and their payment was secured by vendor take-back mortgages with stated principal amounts equal to the maximum future amounts. None of the milestones were achieved, no future payments were made and the purchasers sought refunds of the LTT paid at closing on the future amounts.
In rejecting this claim, Gans J quoted with approval a statement of the Federal Court of Appeal in Daishowa-Marubeni that:
… if the parties to an agreement attribute a value to a future liability, then the Minister is entitled to add this amount to the vendor's proceeds of disposition - whether or not the liability assumed by the purchaser is contingent or absolute.
He also referenced the 2004 Guide of the Ministry of Finance, stating:
…[T]he Appellant could have created a different contractual arrangement and availed itself of [such guidelines] which, arguably, might have resulted in a deferral of the payment of land transfer tax….
Neal Armstrong. Summary of OP Trust v. Ontario, 2016 ONSC 3648 under LTTA, s. 1 - value of the consideration.
S. 111(12) FX losses realized on USD debt on an acquisition of control cannot be carried forward to offset the related s. 40(11) gain realized post-AoC on the debt’s settlement
If a restructuring of USD debt (with an accrued FX loss) of a Canadian debtor entails an acquisition of control ("AoC") of the debtor before the debt is settled for a payment of, say, 20% of the USD amount owing, then an unsheltered capital gain under s. 40(11) very well may arise. In concept, on the debt settlement, s. 40(11) will deem the debtor to realize a capital gain to match the FX capital loss previously realized on the USD debt under s. 111(12) on the AoC (except that this capital gain will be reduced somewhat by the FX loss actually realized on the 20% repayment).
The problem is that the s. 111(12) loss would be extinguished for various purposes on the AoC, and would not be available to be carried forward to offset the s. 40(11) gain. “Finance should consider amending the Act to permit the subsection 111(12) loss to be carried forward after the AoC to offset a later related subsection 40(11) gain.”
A similar problem can arise, for example, on the acquisition of a target owing USD debt, which has appreciated, to an affiliate, and the debt is settled under s. 80.01(3) on an amalgamation occurring, say, a day later.
Neal Armstrong. Summary of Carrie Smit, "Foreign Currency Debts and Acquisitions of Control: Beware the Unexpected Gain," International Tax (Wolters Kluwer CCH), February 2017, No. 9, p. 6 under s. 111(12).
CRA considers that national arts service organizations generally are NPOs rather than charities, and that on-call services are not services
CRA considers that national arts service organizations which register with it do not qualify as charities for GST/HST (or presumably ITA) purposes – although they generally will qualify as non-profit organizations if they are not operated for profit.
A medical facility may pay a doctor set fees for agreeing to be on call for specified periods. CRA has published its view (confirming 8 January 2016 Interpretation 150125) that such fees not only are not for exempt health services, but constitute consideration for supplies by the doctor of intangible personal property. (Agreeing to not engage in conflicting activities is not a service?)
Neal Armstrong. Summaries of Excise and GST/HST News - No. 101 March 2017 under ETA s. 123(1) – charity, Sched. V, Pt. II, s. 5 and Sched. VI, Pt. 1, s. 2(b).
CRA indicates that a qualifying PHSP could encompass the only two employees of a corporation who are the sole shareholder and spouse
The only two employees of a corporation are its sole shareholder and a related individual (e.g., spouse). The corporation pays all their premiums under a (Blue Cross) private health services plan. CRA stated that there would be no taxable benefit (based on the exclusion in s. 6(1)(a)(i)) if they received the benefits qua employees rather than qua shareholder (or spouse of shareholder), and in this regard quoted its position in S2-F3-C2 that this test “may” be satisfied if “all of the employees are shareholders or individuals related to a shareholder, and the benefit or allowance is comparable (in nature and amount) to benefits and allowances generally offered to non-shareholder employees of similar-sized businesses, who perform similar services and have similar responsibilities.”
If there were a taxable benefit, both the shareholder’s premiums and the spousal premiums would be included in the shareholder’s income under s. 15(1) or 56(2).
Neal Armstrong. Summary of 11 January 2017 External T.I. 2016-0635351E5 under s. 6(1)(a)(i).